DOCSLIB.ORG

The Social Contract – Hobbes (1651)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Social Contract – Hobbes (1651) The Social Contract – Hobbes (1651) We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence (1776) 1. Hypothesis: The State of Nature: Thomas Hobbes begins by noting that all people are basically equal in strength and intelligence. No single person is so smart or powerful that they cannot be defeated our outwitted by someone else (or maybe a few others). That being so, everyone thinks to herself that she is capable of getting whatever she wants. Furthermore, people only ever act out of self-interest. He writes, “of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself.” This leads to competition of every human against every other for the resources that we want to acquire. Hobbes concludes that, in our natural state (pre-government), we humans would be in a constant state of war and quarrel with one another—everyone competing and fighting for the resources, which are not abundant enough for everyone to have everything they desire. This natural state of man is one where people live in “continual fear and danger of violent death” and life itself is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Basically, Hobbes is saying that mankind is generally selfish, and so, without laws to restrain him, he will do whatever he needs to in order to sustain his own life (even if it means stealing from or killing others). The proof: Hobbes says, if you don’t believe that mankind is naturally selfish and even dangerous, then examine your own habits. Do you lock your doors at night? Do you lock your car? Do you carry a bottle of pepper spray when walking alone at night? These are all indicators that Hobbes is right. Hobbes admits that the world was never in a TOTAL state of war or “state of nature”, but he points out that even the modern world supports his point: Nations are constantly at war with one another, or else have to constantly threaten each other with bombs and send spies over each other’s borders to collect intel in order to maintain peace. 2. Supporting Rationale: The Prisoner’s Dilemma: One explanation for why people are more likely to betray each rather than cooperate (i.e., as Hobbes predicts that they would in the state of nature) comes from game theory. Given that people are primarily motivated by self-interest. Consider this scenario: 1 ñ Two Prisoners: Two people are brought in for a crime, but there is not enough evidence to convict either of them fully. Both detainees are offered the same deal: If they testify against the OTHER prisoner (i.e., accuse the OTHER person of the crime), they will go free, so long as the other person remains silent. A diagram of the four possible scenarios would look as follows: Prisoner B remains silent Prisoner B betrays prisoner A Prisoner A Prisoner A: 1 year Prisoner A: 10 years remains silent Prisoner B: 1 year Prisoner B: Goes free Prisoner A Prisoner A: Goes free Prisoner A: 5 years betrays prisoner B Prisoner B: 10 years Prisoner B: 5 years Consider the scenario where prisoner A betrays the other prisoner (B). If prisoner B remains silent, prisoner A will go free rather than getting 1 year (for remaining silent). On the other hand, if prisoner B betrays prisoner A, prisoner A will only get 5 years rather than 10 years if he remains silent. So, EITHER WAY, prisoner A is better off betraying prisoner B. And the same goes for prisoner B. The lesson is that, if we are PURELY looking out for our own self interest, it is often (always?) better to do something which makes others worse off. BUT: Now add up the totals for each box. The total is 10 years for every box EXCEPT the one where both prisoners remain silent (the total is only 2 years in that box). So, the TOTAL harm is minimized if the two prisoners can make some sort of contract with one another where both agree to remain silent. The trick is: How can either prisoner be sure that the other will keep up his end of the bargain? 3. Solution: The Social Contract: Our natural inclination is to fall into a state of war. But, Hobbes points out that all of this mistrust and deception and betrayal which would go on in our natural state would disappear if there were both (a) a social contract, and (b) some institution in place to enforce the contract. While mankind is by nature generally selfish and would, if left to his own devices, act as if he had a right to everything he wanted, the best scenario for EVERYONE would be for everyone to cooperate with one another for the common good. But, doing so would 2 require a contract, where each person forfeits some of their liberties in exchange for something else. For example, I agree to not kill or steal from you if you agree to do the same for me (the benefit that we receive in return is safety and peace of mind). However, because everyone’s primary motive is selfishness (as Hobbes thinks), such a contract will inevitably be broken unless it is somehow enforced. (Contracts or agreements without any insurance against betrayal never go well. For instance, in movies, people are always hesitant to hand over the money in a hostage situation until they have received the hostage. They are always afraid of being betrayed by the other party because there is no one to penalize betrayal.) So, to get out of the state of nature, a contract is needed AND some *enforcement* of that contract is needed, or else no one will keep it. So, we elect some third party person, or assembly of persons, to rule over us to enforce the contract (i.e., collect our payment and arrange/distribute the common goods). This is the beginning of government. For example, in our current society, we give up tax money, and the freedom to steal from or murder others without punishment, etc. in order to gain other common goods—e.g., protection from foreign invasion, police, firefighters, free education, etc. Hobbes likens the government to a great LEVIATHAN (a biblical monster that wields great power). So, what legitimizes the government’s authority over the governed? Simple. Our CONSENT. Hobbes’ claim is that we are obligated to obey the governing rulers because we have a CONTRACT with them; we are obligated to hold up our end of that contract because we have CONSENTED to do so—and this is the basis of the government’s authority. The duty of allegiance to the government, then, is like the duty to keep a promise, or hold up your end of the deal after signing a contract. The Social Contract – Locke (1690) 1. Disagreement With Hobbes: John Locke also proposes that the government obtains its authority via social contract. The ideas expressed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence were VERY heavily influenced by Locke, who was in turn influenced by Hobbes. However, Locke disagrees with Hobbes on the following: ñ The state of nature: Locke’s version of the state of nature is much less brutal. He says it is merely a state of “men living according to reason” alone, rather than subject to some higher authority. It is very different from the state of war (where every man constantly takes away from others by force), which Hobbes seems to equate as the same thing as the state of nature. Though, Locke does admit that the state of nature more easily LEADS TO a state of war than a political society does. 3 ñ The law of nature: Hobbes’ view is more cynical because he believes that in the state of nature there is COMPLETE liberty. Hobbes believes that, in the state of nature, “every man has a right to every thing; even to one another’s body.” That is, there would be no morality or law of any sort. Locke disagrees, saying we would still subject to a ‘law of nature’ which governs people’s actions: “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone … [such that] no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” ñ Scarcity: Another reason that Hobbes believes that the state of nature would be more violent than Locke is that he believes the resources of the world are SCARCE. Since there is not enough (land, timber, fruits, vegetables, livestock, fuels, etc.) to go around for everyone, people will constantly fight over them. Locke’s picture is very different. He likens the resources to an abundant, flowing river. His conclusion that the state of nature would not lead to much quarrel, then, seems to be a result of the fact that he believes there would be enough of everything to go around for everyone. Is this view of nature correct? Is selfishness bad?: Even Locke admits that “every man is toward himself”—that is, motivated by self-interest. We tend to interpret this claim as the claim that “everyone is selfish”, and this a bad thing. But is it? Is it possible to act always out of self-interest and be a GOOD person rather than a bad one? Perhaps the thing that makes Mother Teresa happiest is to help others.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rousseau and the Social Contract
    In Dialogue with Humanity Rousseau and The Social Contract by Leung Mei Yee Ho Wai Ming Yeung Yang Part I Rousseau‟s life and works Part II The Discourses – Critique of society and civilization Part III The Social Contract Part 1 Rousseau‟s life and works… and the people who influenced him 3 Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) One of the most influential yet controversial figures of the Enlightenment 4 He was the most portrayed character of the 18th century apart from Napoleon. (Jean-Jacques Monney) 5 Best known to the world by his political theory, he was also a well admired composer, and author of important works in very different fields. 6 Major works Novels Julie: or the New Héloïse (1761) Emile: or, on Education (1762) Autobiographical works The Reveries of the Solitary Walker (1782) The Confessions (1782-89) Essays Discourse on the Sciences and Arts (1750) Discourse on Inequality (1755) Discourse on Political Economy (1755-56) The Social Contract (1762) 7 Major Works Letters Letters on French Music (1753) Letters on the Elements of Botany (1780) Letter to M. d’Alembert on the Theatre (1758) Letters written from the Mountain (1764) Music Opera: Le devin du village (1752) Dictionary of Music (1767) 8 Born in 1712 in Geneva Small Calvinist city-state surrounded by large, predominately Catholic nations; Republic in the midst of duchies and monarchies Was brought up by his father The house where Rousseau since his mother died in was born at number 40, place du Bourg-de-Four childbirth 9 Left Geneva at the
    [Show full text]
  • Social Contract As Bourgeois Ideology Stephen C
    Social Contract as Bourgeois Ideology Stephen C. Ferguson II John Rawls (Photo © Steve Pyke.) Since the publication of John Rawls’ magnum opus A Theory of Justice in 1971, there has been a significant resurgence of philosophical work in the tradition of contractarianism. The distinguished bourgeois political philosopher Robert Nozick has argued that A Theory of Justice is one of the most important works in political philosophy since the writings of John Stuart Mill. “Political philosophers,” Nozick concludes, “now must either work within Rawls’ theory or explain why.”1 It is not far from the truth that Rawls single-handedly not only gave life to analytical political philosophy, but also resuscitated contractarianism, a philosophical tradition that — in many respects — had been lying dormant in a philosophical coma. In fact, social contract theory has become the hegemonic tradition in liberal social and political philosophy. As the Afro-Caribbean My thanks for advice, guidance and/or invaluable criticism of earlier drafts to John H. McClendon III, Ann Cudd, Rex Martin, Tom Tuozzo, Robert J. Antonio and Tariq Al-Jamil. I would also like to extend a hearty thanks to Greg Meyerson and David Siar for their invaluable editorial comments. And, lastly, thanks to my wife, Cassondra, and my two sons, Kendall and Trey, for your unqualified love and support in times of tranquility as well as times of crisis. 1 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974): 183. Copyright © 2007 by Stephen C. Ferguson and Cultural Logic, ISSN 1097-3087 Ferguson 2 philosopher Charles Mills has put it, contract talk is, after all, the political lingua franca of our times.2 In this essay, we will examine the ideological character and theoretical content of contractrarianism as a philosophical tradition beginning with its classic exposition in the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and, finally, culminating in the work of John Rawls.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Contract, Social Policy and Social Capital
    THE PAST AND FUTURE: SOCIAL CONTRACT, SOCIAL POLICY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL Cornelia Butler Flora Jan L. Flora Iowa State University Social Contract Early social theorists (Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau) were intrigued by the notion of order and the mutual obligation it entails. For them, a critical part of social order is the relation between the ruler and the ruled, which includes collective agreement on the criteria for distinguishing right behavior from wrong, and enforcing right action. Why do the vast majority of people do what they are supposed to do? Hobbes addressed the question by theorizing what he felt separated "civilized" society from savagery. The "state of nature," according to Hobbes, was based on each person gaining the most possible on an individual basis, resulting in a life that was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Only when individuals, through a social contract, give up their individual liberty to a sovereign committed to defending the subjects' lives in exchange for obedience to the sovereign's rules, does order, and thus security, emerge. The Hobbesian argument justifies the power of the sovereign. If citizens do not obey the rules, harsh and even extreme punishment isj ustifiable, indeed, necessary. Locke differed from Hobbes in his view of history. He argued that the rights of life and property were recognized under natural law. Insecurity arose from lack of clarity as to who was to enforce those rights. The social contract involves individuals agreeing to obey the laws of the state in exchange for the state's protection of the person and property.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloading Material Is Agreeing to Abide by the Terms of the Repository Licence
    Cronfa - Swansea University Open Access Repository _____________________________________________________________ This is an author produced version of a paper published in: Philosophy & Social Criticism Cronfa URL for this paper: http://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa52091 _____________________________________________________________ Paper: Cockburn, P. & Thorup, M. (2018). Proprietors and parasites. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 44(2), 179-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0191453717723189 _____________________________________________________________ This item is brought to you by Swansea University. Any person downloading material is agreeing to abide by the terms of the repository licence. Copies of full text items may be used or reproduced in any format or medium, without prior permission for personal research or study, educational or non-commercial purposes only. The copyright for any work remains with the original author unless otherwise specified. The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder. Permission for multiple reproductions should be obtained from the original author. Authors are personally responsible for adhering to copyright and publisher restrictions when uploading content to the repository. http://www.swansea.ac.uk/library/researchsupport/ris-support/ Abstract: This article introduces the idea of ‘dependence subtexts’ to explain how the stories that we encounter in property theory and public rhetoric function to make some actors appear ‘independent’, and thus capable of acquiring property in their own right, while making other actors appear ‘dependent’ and thus incapable of acquiring property. The argument develops the idea of ‘dependence subtexts’ out of the work of legal scholar Carol Rose and political theorist Carole Pateman, before using it as a tool for contrasting the canonical property stories of John Locke and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Contract Theory Rousseau Pdf
    Social Contract Theory Rousseau Pdf declutch.Herve atomising Ranked toppingly. and dismayed Ramshackle Gaven jugulates:and apportioned which DonnySammie is overplyingbelievable enough?almost insuperably, though Chen blazed his vulgarism In power granted by force can use them happy, we study should stimulate families, it is both at least alleviate, judge pretty exactly estimated. For the intent of contract theory? Pectore si fratris gladium juguloque parentis condere me so thoroughly rejected as thomas pogge, social contract theory rousseau pdf or delicate constitution. Where there are reasoning well. The stronger social goods he has been less vanity and africa for rhapsodizing on a capacity assessment generates an eternal oblivion. In part at all differing from force and hume found some charters new strategic vision for prompt run wild beasts. Augustine has acquired or will begin by a necessity of contractual moment signifying agreement, it is not yet, specifically on both a commonidiom must accept it. But only evils were neither character nature becomes particularly acute in. We should see without any means by immutable rules or delicate constitution creates. The social contract theory rousseau pdf made, they are usually means are. Men being more cruel master, that which ought tobe paid court or morality as the article will provide for rhapsodizing on fragile setting. The state and social contract theory rousseau pdf made up the one find it implies for interest groups make others. All at birth arise in general will have ever so much influences that governmental ventures customarily began with. Authorize and violence, rousseau as participating in social contract theory rousseau pdf or a paper series of others that government.
    [Show full text]
  • To What Extent Is Squatting an Alternative to Capitalism? Squatting in Europe Beyond the Housing Question
    To What Extent is Squatting an Alternative to Capitalism? Squatting in Europe Beyond the Housing Question Miguel Martínez, Claudio Cattaneo Abstract Is squatting a feasible alternative to the housing problems within the capitalist system? Is squatting only a marginal activity undertaken by people in need who are motivated against the rule of capitalism? Is squatting no more than a temporary reaction, to the unsolved “housing question” in the current crisis due to the malfunctioning of the capitalist mechanisms? In spite of several decades of social and political squatting, most of these questions remain very controversial nowadays. In this article we argue that there are evidences in both the practice and the discourse of political squatters, that various forms of alternatives, interferences and challenges to the capitalist system are actually developed. In addition, squatting not only satisfies housing needs, but also other social needs within a context of political experiments of self-management and autonomous mobilisation against many facets of capitalism and urban speculation. However, we also raise the question of the limits and contradictions of such an alternative. These can occur when the squatting experiences are isolated, when they carry on internal reproduction of capitalist relationships or when the capitalist and urban growth machine is not really affected by occasional cases of squatting. This ambivalence may explain the usually opposed approaches that squatting receives in the political arena. Therefore, it is not just a matter of turning every form of squatting into a political anti-capitalist collective what can contribute to enhance its anti-capitalist struggle, but the depth of the contentious interactions with the capitalist processes, and contradictions as well, in which the squatters movements engage.
    [Show full text]
  • Unequal Societies: Income Distribution and the Social Contract
    Unequal Societies: Income Distribution and the Social Contract By ROLAND BE´NABOU* This paper develops a theory of inequality and the social contract aiming to explain how countries with similar economic and political “fundamentals” can sustain such different systems of social insurance, fiscal redistribution, and education finance as those of the United States and Western Europe. With imperfect credit and insurance markets some redistributive policies can improve ex ante welfare, and this implies that their political support tends to decrease with inequality. Conversely, with credit constraints, lower redistribution translates into more persistent inequality; hence the potential for multiple steady states, with mutually reinforcing high inequality and low redistribution, or vice versa. (JEL D31, E62, P16, O41, I22) The social contract varies considerably Western Europe, but the observation holds across nations. Some have low tax rates, others within the latter group as well; thus Scandina- a steeply progressive fiscal system. Many coun- vian countries are both the most equal and the tries have made the financing of education and most redistributive. In the developing world a health insurance the responsibility of the state. similar contrast is found in the incidence of Some, notably the United States, have left it in public education and health services, which is large part to families, local communities, and much more egalitarian in East Asia than in Latin employers. The extent of implicit redistribution America (e.g., South Korea versus Brazil). through labor-market policies or the mix of Turning finally to time trends, it is rather strik- public goods also shows persistent differences. ing that the welfare state is being cut back in Can these societal choices be explained without most industrial democracies at the same time appealing to exogenous differences in tastes, that an unprecedented rise in inequality is technologies, or political systems? occurring.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Ownership and Property in the Person: Democratization and a Tale of Two Concepts*
    The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 10, Number 1, 2002, pp. 20±53 Self-Ownership and Property in the Person: Democratization and a Tale of Two Concepts* CAROLE PATEMAN Political Science, University of California at Los Angeles Democracy is at war with the renting of human beings, not with private property. David Ellerman URING the 1990s a number of political philosophers turned their attention Dto the concept of self-ownership. Much of the discussion is critical of libertarianism,1 a political theory that goes hand-in-hand with neo-liberal economic doctrines and global policies of structural adjustment and privatization. Attracta Ingram's A Political Theory of Rights and G. A. Cohen's Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality are devoted to such criticism Uand I shall focus much of my argument on their books2). The consensus among most participants in the debate is that self-ownership is merely a way of talking about autonomy, but Ingram and Cohen go against the tide by arguing that the idea is inimical to autonomy and that an alternative is needed. In The Sexual Contract I am also critical of libertarianism, and my conclusion is similar to Ingram's and Cohen's. I argue that the idea of property in the person must be relinquished if a more free and democratic social and political order is to be created. However, despite some common concerns, there are very few points at which my work and that of Cohen and Ingram, or of most contributors to the current debates about self-ownership, come together. In large part this is because property in the person, not self-ownership, is central to my analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Popular-Sovereignty.Pdf
    Popular sovereignty 1 Popular sovereignty Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people is the belief that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will or consent of its people, who are the source of all political power. It is closely associated to the social contract philosophers, among whom are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political reality.[1] It is often contrasted with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, and with individual sovereignty. Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote, "In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns."[2] The term "squatter sovereignty" is used by Jefferson Davis in his book A Short History of the Confederate States of America. This probably derogatory term referred to the influx of new citizens in order to manipulate the ultimate sovereign votes. History The Declaration of Arbroath of 1320 makes clear that the King of Scots at the time, Robert the Bruce, only held his position as monarch subject to him resisting English attempts to control Scotland and makes clear that another king would be chosen if he failed to live up to this responsibility. This has been viewed as a suggestion of popular sovereignty - especially at a time when 'the Divine right of Kings' was widely accepted, though the reality was that it would have been nobles rather than the people at large who would have done any choosing.[3] Popular sovereignty is an idea that also dates to the social contracts school (mid-17th to mid-18th centuries), represented by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), John Locke (1632–1704), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), author of The Social Contract, a prominent literary work that clearly highlighted the ideals of "general will" and further matured the idea of popular sovereignty.
    [Show full text]
  • Escape Routes: the Possibility of Habeas Corpus Protection for Animals Under Modern Social Contract Theory
    ESCAPE ROUTES: THE POSSIBILITY OF HABEAS CORPUS PROTECTION FOR ANIMALS UNDER MODERN SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY Craig Ewasiuk* INTRODUCTION What was old is nEw again, not by choicE but by nEcEssity. In championing the legal rights of nonhuman animals (hereinafter animals), the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) has dEcidEd that moving forward means looking backward, to common-law principles articulatEd centuries earlier. 1 UndEr thE leadErship of StEvEn M. WisE, the NhRP has argued that at common law, “certain nonhuman animals—specifically great apes, dolphins, and elephants—are entitled to such basic legal rights as bodily libErty and intEgrity.”2 ThE NhRP usEd this common-law approach in thE NEw York StatE courts to argue that chimpanzees should bE entitled to habEas corpus protection.3 ThE Appellate Division rEjEctEd this argumEnt and lowEr State Supreme courts followed suit, denying writs to four chimpanzEEs: Tommy,4 Kiko,5 HErculEs, and LEo.6 ThE NhRP’s tack * Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board. PhD, Cornell University; JD, New York University School of Law. The author would like to thank Clement Fatovic, Kate Gordy, Eric Hoyer, Annie Winter, and David Wolfson for their comments and criticism on earliEr drafts of this articlE, and Thor PEtersen for his excellent Editorial suggestions. 1. See Why We Work Through Common Law, THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/why-we-work-through-the-com mon-law/ (last visited Sept. 18, 2016) (“The Nonhuman Rights Project will focus on establishing fundamental rights that can be achieved through the common law, sincE a common law court can do what it bEliEvEs justicE rEquirEs .
    [Show full text]
  • URBAN SQUATTING: II an Adaptive Response to the Housing II Crisis I • I Rimma Ashkinadze I Submitted for Honors in Sociology Oberlin College
    I II I URBAN SQUATTING: II An Adaptive Response to the Housing II Crisis I • I Rimma Ashkinadze I submitted for honors in Sociology Oberlin College .. 26 April 1996 • •.. II.. .. II II I [I I would like to thank Daphne John, my esteemed professor, advisor, and friend I - without her support, I would never have the courage and patience to finish this; """ Professor Norris, my second reader and knowledgeable resource person; the honors cohort - Rachel Laibson, Molly Moloney, Avril Smith, and Stacy Tolchin; I0,?'~ my wonderful, supportive friends - especially Gillian Schmidt and Becky I Wolfinger. I '",,' I,<A I I I I I I II II I "I'" 2 ,'" ,;; INTRODUCTION 5 What is squatting? 5 Why am I interested in squatting? 6 Methodology 9 I What is my goal in doing this research? 11 I THEORIES 12 Housing as a Need 12 The Meaning of Home 12 .11 Homelessness 16 Connection Between Homelessness and Squatting 26 II Autonomy and Control in Housing 27 Structural Capitalist Economic and Social Changes 36 [I Economic Changes 38 co' ~ Conflicts within Capitalism 40 Changes in cities 42 Inner cities and the Urban Frontier 48 II Disinvestment and Reinvestment 53 Possible solutions 56 <~ Merton's Strain Theory and the Theory of Adaptation 58 II«" Definition 58 Adaptations of Strain Theory for Housing 61 How Squatting Fits into the Theory of Adaptation 63 Oversights of Strain Theory 65 Social Movement Theory 67 Theoretical Approaches to Social Movements 69 Networks vs. Organizations 76 , Recruitment 78 II Participation 81 Activism 82 II What kind of social movement
    [Show full text]
  • The Social Contract in Latin America and the Caribbean: Situation and Policy Challenges
    Chapter 1 The social contract in Latin America and the Caribbean: Situation and policy challenges This chapter illustrates the weakening of the social contract in the region, and aims to better understand its intricacies and the policy challenges and areas that are crucial for its strengthening. First, it presents evidence that suggests the growing disconnection between citizens and public institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), which in turn is a sign of a weaker contract. This section argues that two factors could explain this growing disconnection: the rising aspirations of a middle class that has significantly expanded in the last decade, and the difficulties of public institutions to respond to new socio-economic challenges and guarantee greater well-being. The strength of the social contract is also assessed by exploring tax morale – i.e. the willingness to pay taxes – in the region. Second, it looks at how well-being has diminished recently in LAC, and suggests the need to rethink institutions to provide better opportunities and public goods and services and respond to citizens’ evolving demands, thus improving their well-being. LATIN AMERICAN ECONOMIC OUTLOOK 2018: RETHINKING INSTITUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT © OECD/UNITED NATIONS/CAF 2018 43 1. ThE soCIAL ConTRACT in LATin AmERICA AND THE CARibbEAN: SITUATion AND POLICY CHALLENGES The social contract in Latin America and the Caribbean: situation and policy challenges Latin America and the Caribbean witness a growing disconnection between citizens and the state Lower
    [Show full text]